|
|
|
- Thread starter Electrify
- Start date
- Status
CN Tower
Banned
Brevity is sadly lacking
I'll be brief:
1. Torontonians remember the garbage strike well and essentially voted for someone who has vowed to stand up to the unions. There's was no indication that George would do it and clearly Joey Pants in a just a mini-me version of the former mayor. Rob had a vision for the city (some of you despise it of course) and George just really wanted to be mayor to satiate his ego.
2. labels are nasty and really spiteful. I am not an immigrant/catholic/muslim/asian/jew/indian/greek/russian/gay/straight/transender/right/left/neo/lib/con/leaf fan etc. I am a human being with personal beliefs and opinions. My point is stop the harmful labeling.
I'll be brief:
1. Torontonians remember the garbage strike well and essentially voted for someone who has vowed to stand up to the unions. There's was no indication that George would do it and clearly Joey Pants in a just a mini-me version of the former mayor. Rob had a vision for the city (some of you despise it of course) and George just really wanted to be mayor to satiate his ego.
2. labels are nasty and really spiteful. I am not an immigrant/catholic/muslim/asian/jew/indian/greek/russian/gay/straight/transender/right/left/neo/lib/con/leaf fan etc. I am a human being with personal beliefs and opinions. My point is stop the harmful labeling.
Coltaine79
Active Member
RC8/Daniel,
My problem is that your stance makes one of two mistakes:
- putting all vismins and/or immigrants into the same teapot, without making reference to generation (older generation who was educated in their country, vs. the younger generation educated by our progressive-led educational system ; also, first generation immigrants (the recent arrivals) vs the second/third/4th generation immigrants, who are completely acclimatized in "Canadian culture")
- using a single anecdotal interaction with an "immigrant" to jump to conclusions about a group. RC8's tale of this Sikh girl is a pretty good example of this. It's "pretty fucking obvious"!
You can talk about this anonymous Sikh girl all day long... I can talk about Jaggi Singh, Ujjal Dosanjh, Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji.
Find me a Sikh who lives in the annex, or yorkville, or Y&E, with beliefs similar to those you espoused.
You did after all mention "Brampton". Why would you start talking about a redneck suburb and then be surprised to find rednecks there?
My problem is that your stance makes one of two mistakes:
- putting all vismins and/or immigrants into the same teapot, without making reference to generation (older generation who was educated in their country, vs. the younger generation educated by our progressive-led educational system ; also, first generation immigrants (the recent arrivals) vs the second/third/4th generation immigrants, who are completely acclimatized in "Canadian culture")
- using a single anecdotal interaction with an "immigrant" to jump to conclusions about a group. RC8's tale of this Sikh girl is a pretty good example of this. It's "pretty fucking obvious"!
You can talk about this anonymous Sikh girl all day long... I can talk about Jaggi Singh, Ujjal Dosanjh, Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji.
Find me a Sikh who lives in the annex, or yorkville, or Y&E, with beliefs similar to those you espoused.
You did after all mention "Brampton". Why would you start talking about a redneck suburb and then be surprised to find rednecks there?
Danielinthecity
Active Member
Coltain...speaking for myself...I'm not arriving at any definitive conclusions...and I'm not surprised about rednecks in Brampton.
What I expressed surprise about was in reference to when I first moved to Toronto many years ago and was admittedly very naive at least as far as ethnic groups are concerned.
Also, I 'have' met younger generation people who share many of their parents' attitudes. Of course, not all. For example, I have a very close friend who's Indian and he's as liberal as they come and he's in his 30's and came here (actually San Diego to do his phd and then here) in his 20's.
Conversely, I met a few other Indian guys during my days at school who were here from their homeland do go to school...they were in their 20's...lived in rented condos downtown (that their rich dad back home paid for), and said some pretty nasty elitist things during the times I knew them. What was really weird is that they were genuinly nice people, but when it came to some issues, like homelessness, gay pride parade, taxes, transit, etc...boy did their fangs come out. They hated gays, would NEVER take transit...that was for 'other' people, thought they should pay almost no taxes...comments like, "why should I pay so much just to take care of a bunch of lazy people on welfare"...
...these are the kinds of things I had heard not only from these two particular guys, but also from many others, and from BOTH old and new generations...
...so all I was trying to say is that this kind of thinking is alive and well, and to pretend it's not is not doing any of us any good...personally I think these attitudes are often rooted in class based societies, and sometimes that comes with the immigrant package, and that may be one of the reasons why ford got elected...that's all b/c he represented to many people who have these views, whether they are immigrants or long time Canadians...
Electrify
Senior Member
Like I said, I'm not trying to blame immigrants, and if anyone was to blame it is the right-winged media. I respect someone who chooses not to vote more than I support someone who votes without doing any research. Thing is, I could see some newcomers doing research... from the Toronto Sun. They may not have understood how flawed it is, they just see 'high taxes' and a candidate who promises to get rid of them. And yes, I'm sure there were ones who have old country values, did the research, and voted for Ford. And if that is what they want, then I respect that.
I may not agree with most of it, but I do have respect for conservative values. Thing is, Ford's values were into fringe territory when it comes to policy. Even if people wanted a harder shift to the right than, I would have expected a more center-right candidate like Rossi to pick up more support than Ford. Rossi not only never picked up support, but dropped out, which left two candidates left representing change: Ford and Smitherman. And with Ford's radical policies compared to Smitherman's which were far more moderate and realistic, I would have expected the latter to come out on top.
This is a theory, or rather a scientific hypothesis, not a claim I'm making. I don't know who voted for what, or what their reasoning's were. I just find it odd that a city which has traditionally been a left stronghold could support such an overwhelming shift to the far right.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I think the electoral map will show a Lastman-Hall level of city-suburb polarization (though Ford probably did quite a bit better in Etobicoke and quite a bit worse in North York). Here are the results by "borough" from '97:
East York: Hall 58%, Lastman 40%
Etobicoke: Lastman 52%, Hall 45%
North York: Lastman 79%, Hall 19%
Scarborough: Lastman 53%, Hall 45%
Toronto: Hall 68%, Lastman 30%
York: Hall 50%, Lastman 47%
East York: Hall 58%, Lastman 40%
Etobicoke: Lastman 52%, Hall 45%
North York: Lastman 79%, Hall 19%
Scarborough: Lastman 53%, Hall 45%
Toronto: Hall 68%, Lastman 30%
York: Hall 50%, Lastman 47%
Last edited:
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
I think everyone is overanalyzing this.
The only relatively consistent barometer for electoral change is the perceived state of the economy.
If the economy is in bad shape, the incumbent will be turfed regardless of who that incumbent is, and vice versa. For example: Bush I was dumped in 1992 when the American economy was in the dumps and replaced by Clinton; Clinton won a second term in 1996 when the American economy was a roaring success. In 2000, the economy was neither here nor there, but had come out of a relatively small crisis due to the dotcom bubble that didn't really affect most working people. The result was a stalemate that was decided by judges. Bush II won in 2004 not because people were mostly had turned sharply to the right, but because the American economy was relatively healthy. Republicans suffered a crushing defeat in 2008 not because Obama was considered to be such a saviour to so many people (as the press made it out to be), but because the economy was in the shitter. The Dems will lose a lot of Senate and House seats because the economy has not improved, not because a majority of Americans suddenly have Tea Party values. Rob Ford won in Toronto because the state of the economy - particularly for working class suburbanites living in a decaying ring of inner suburbia, is not improving. Even if you have a job during this recession, the signs of economic malaise are pretty easy to see. The knee-jerk reaction of voters is to dispose of whoever is in charge (or, to vote for whoever is the most 'opposite' or 'contrarian' of the prevailing ruling party) in the hope that a fresh face will put things on the right track.
Of course, there are always ardent ideological supporters. We saw how many people braved the winter cold to "witness history" in the inauguration of Barack Obama, and there is certainly a vocal fan base for Rob Ford who think he is practically the second coming of Christ. These people will vote along ideological lines no matter what the politician does in his/her term and regardless of how well received that person is by the public at large. Even if Rob Ford saddles Toronto with an enormous budget deficit and essential programs cease to run, these people will still vote for him in 2014. We should not care about these people, however, because they generally form a minority of the voters who vote for a politician. These people also tend to know how to make a lot of noise and mislead the media and pollsters to believe that some profound societal shift is underway, when really nothing is out of the ordinary. Most of the public, however, is relatively aloof and disengaged from partisan politics and will simply use the threat of the economy to themselves, their friends or their families to decide which way they will vote on election day.
Rob Ford will be reelected in 2014 if the general state of economic affairs is good for Torontonians by 2014. He will be voted out if it hasn't. Of course, the economic state that the city finds itself in has much more to do with global macroeconomic trends, large-scale demographic shifts and emerging technologies and very little to do with who's mayor of a city of 2.5 million (aka: who holds marginal government control of a city that represents probably 1/1000th of the global economy), so there's not much that Rob Ford can control to make himself more or less electable between now and then.
The only relatively consistent barometer for electoral change is the perceived state of the economy.
If the economy is in bad shape, the incumbent will be turfed regardless of who that incumbent is, and vice versa. For example: Bush I was dumped in 1992 when the American economy was in the dumps and replaced by Clinton; Clinton won a second term in 1996 when the American economy was a roaring success. In 2000, the economy was neither here nor there, but had come out of a relatively small crisis due to the dotcom bubble that didn't really affect most working people. The result was a stalemate that was decided by judges. Bush II won in 2004 not because people were mostly had turned sharply to the right, but because the American economy was relatively healthy. Republicans suffered a crushing defeat in 2008 not because Obama was considered to be such a saviour to so many people (as the press made it out to be), but because the economy was in the shitter. The Dems will lose a lot of Senate and House seats because the economy has not improved, not because a majority of Americans suddenly have Tea Party values. Rob Ford won in Toronto because the state of the economy - particularly for working class suburbanites living in a decaying ring of inner suburbia, is not improving. Even if you have a job during this recession, the signs of economic malaise are pretty easy to see. The knee-jerk reaction of voters is to dispose of whoever is in charge (or, to vote for whoever is the most 'opposite' or 'contrarian' of the prevailing ruling party) in the hope that a fresh face will put things on the right track.
Of course, there are always ardent ideological supporters. We saw how many people braved the winter cold to "witness history" in the inauguration of Barack Obama, and there is certainly a vocal fan base for Rob Ford who think he is practically the second coming of Christ. These people will vote along ideological lines no matter what the politician does in his/her term and regardless of how well received that person is by the public at large. Even if Rob Ford saddles Toronto with an enormous budget deficit and essential programs cease to run, these people will still vote for him in 2014. We should not care about these people, however, because they generally form a minority of the voters who vote for a politician. These people also tend to know how to make a lot of noise and mislead the media and pollsters to believe that some profound societal shift is underway, when really nothing is out of the ordinary. Most of the public, however, is relatively aloof and disengaged from partisan politics and will simply use the threat of the economy to themselves, their friends or their families to decide which way they will vote on election day.
Rob Ford will be reelected in 2014 if the general state of economic affairs is good for Torontonians by 2014. He will be voted out if it hasn't. Of course, the economic state that the city finds itself in has much more to do with global macroeconomic trends, large-scale demographic shifts and emerging technologies and very little to do with who's mayor of a city of 2.5 million (aka: who holds marginal government control of a city that represents probably 1/1000th of the global economy), so there's not much that Rob Ford can control to make himself more or less electable between now and then.
howl
Active Member
Boom, Bust, Echo.
The baby boomers are no longer left-leaning progressives, they are getting near retirement age. They've done there bit to change the world and now they want to ensure there is enough money in the pot to give them a comfortable retirement. They've all become conservative fuss-pots. That, added to the general conserative nature of recent immigrants (unlike the left-leaning immigrants of the 60's and 70's), will ensure we're going to stay to the right of centre for some time. That is until the boomer kids (the echo) are old enough to take politics seriously
The baby boomers are no longer left-leaning progressives, they are getting near retirement age. They've done there bit to change the world and now they want to ensure there is enough money in the pot to give them a comfortable retirement. They've all become conservative fuss-pots. That, added to the general conserative nature of recent immigrants (unlike the left-leaning immigrants of the 60's and 70's), will ensure we're going to stay to the right of centre for some time. That is until the boomer kids (the echo) are old enough to take politics seriously
Please don't generalize. Thanks.
Signed, A late boomer who's working on retirement but isn't a fuss-pot.
Signed, A late boomer who's working on retirement but isn't a fuss-pot.
Coltaine79
Active Member
Oh well, since all we're really doing is trading anecdotes involving ethnic groups, I guess it's time for one of mine.
The day following the Toronto election, I counted 6 of my Facebook friends had updated their Status to reflect their opinion on the Rob Ford victory. Here's a summary of what side their opinion fell and what "group" they could be said to belong to:
IN SUPPORT OF: i.e. "I'm pleased that Ford won..."
1 - 7th or 8th gen. Canadian, British isles descent
1 - also British isles descent
Neutral: "Let's not jump to any conclusions, let's see what he does..."
1 - Polish descent
Moderately against: i.e. "We're in for a chaotic 4 years, let's hope there's a star candidate in 2014..."
1 - hispanic (South American descent)
1 - me (Indian descent)
VEHEMENTLY against: **very strong anti-Ford statements, which I won't even attempt to summarize**
2 - both of Asian descent (HK & Macau)
From where I'm perched, it seems as if my most rabidly anti-Ford friends are Asian... and my most pro-Ford friends are both white. One of them lives in Yorkville and works in financial services btw...
YES, this is all meaningless prattle, but it just goes to illustrate why you can't blame the Ford victory on your own personal interactions with a particular ethnic group.
BTW: Obviously, I do have more than 6 friends on facebook... lol..
The_Waffler
Active Member
The_Waffler
Active Member
Every cent spent on supporting performance art or starving artists. Really important part of the budget... money well spent. Not contracting out municipal waste collection is pissing money away. The $1 million washroom at the Exhibition. Fair wage drives up costs to the City and is based entirely on ideological grounds since it does not ban non-union contracts, just forces the wages up if they are below the union scale.
If they tried half as hard to save money as they did ways to spend it or extract more of it from us, it wouldn't be so bad.
nfitz
Superstar
Which poll? There is some expensive areas in Toronto-Danforth.
Though better question - where are the results for individual polls? I haven't even seen a breakdown by ward.
Chuck
Senior Member
I would question associating wealth with support for Ford. As we know, Toronto's wealth is focused along the lake and up Yonge, with lower income areas being found everywhere else. The latter of these two areas makes up most of the 416 suburbs, and is supposedly where the majority of Ford's support lies.
adma
Superstar
Addressing things more generally rather than the specific posters you're responding to, I feel the more appropriate PF-initial reference than Paul Fromm would be Pim Fortuyn...
- Status